There are some older communities in the Northern part of Florida with some interesting residential architecture, but this far south it is hard to find anything really beautiful. Sarasota is about as far South as you can go and find beautiful old homes.
Miami would be the exception. There are some wonderfully beautiful neighborhoods in Miami. Oh… of course Caroline Street on Key West stands out as well.
I grew up on the west side the Jax in a neighborhood where the majority of houses were ca. 1920s. I guess that’s where I developed an affinity for older homes.
I have a friend named Steve that lives in one of the oldest communities in Fort Myers. A developer dug circular lakes in the 1920s and built small cottages on pizza-slice shaped lots and sold them to wealthy people up North as vacation homes.
In the 1950s the community was re-developed. In sections of three cottages, one was razed, and the other two were connected by a huge sunken living room to form a large single-family house.
It is a magnificent neighborhood, and I have not seen anything else like it anywhere. A true time-capsule of mid-century design combined with old Florida art-deco style.
As an ex-roofing sales person, I would not recommend that design anywhere where there are raccoons, squirrels, pigeons… The gap between the angled roof sections and the flat roof invites anything and everything to move in! I guess it would be okay in HO. The HO raccoons don’t move around too much.[swg]
I’ve occasionally thought of modeling my own home for my layout. It’s not large, but I think such a structure would dwarf other model homes and look out of size, even of built properly to scale. Most of my structures are on the small size, particularly residential buildings. Is this a result of model railroaders wanting more space for trains, so manufacturers make smaller buildings?
My house is quite modest. It is basically 60 by 24 with a couple of 200 SF protrusions coming out. It would occupy a space of about 9 inches by 5 inches if built to HO scale, much larger than most commercial plastic houses.
Well, there is a difference between using language technically and descriptively. If someone from Philadelphia says she lives in a Victorian twin, the locals will all know precisely what that means.
A great many northeast and mid Atlantic city row homes of that period are Richardsonian Romanesque in style, one of the many “Victorian period” styles.
And many duplexes are Queen Anne or Colonial Revival, or a mix of the two.
And yes, to the unindoctrinated I have refered to my own house (the blue one in my other post, actually now previous house of 25 years) as a “Queen Anne Victorian” or even simply as a “Victorian”
If we really want to get fussy, most Architectural historians would call my blue house technically one or both of these:
“Mature Queen Anne” or “Colonial Revival infuenced Queen Anne”, owing to its late construction (1901) and blending of Queen Anne and Colonial Revival features, which are accented by the Colonial Revival color scheme we chose when we restored it in 1996.
Inside it is true to many of its original details of both styles as well, and the new owners did not seem in a hurry to change it.
I love Architecture, almost all good Architecture. Mid Century Modern has it jewels, and its stinkers, as do all the styles. But it is not a style I would pick for myself personally.
My father was an architect. I grew up in a modern style house that he designed, finished in 1969. Not too many but, plenty of windows and a low profile flat roof with fairly large overhangs. The flat roof not very practical in Lakewood Colorado. But it was a great house, nice view, and had a train room!
Now, here’s one that maybe a clever modeller could bash together
My daughter has her 1905 Queen Anne completely gutted, all four stories worth!
It is getting built inside like a completely modern house with all new construction inside the walls. Nothing inside will reflect the 115 year old age of the house.
I am so glad she is about 1,000 miles away. Seeing that in person would break my heart.
You ain’t kiddin’, Kevin. I don’t have a problem modernizing an older home - up to an extent. I would want to upgrade important factors (insulation, outlets, plumbing, etc.) but still keep the interior charm of the house intact - i.e. as long as it is salvagable and doesn’t compromise the integrity of the structure.
This is actually what I do for a living. You buy the 1895 Queen Anne, we keep and restore the original architectural details, but we modernize the wiring, plumbing, HVAC, etc.
We tastefully make changes to improve the function of kitchens and baths while keeping them in the style of the original house.
We keep and restore plaster wall in many cases, we have trim custom milled to match so our repairs and minor changes blend in seamlessly, we repair or replace windows so they are energy wise without loosing the style, proportions or details of the original design.
The first thing that came to mind is how much this reminds me of Miesian design language: ‘industrial’ tropes as metaphor. What was that house on the Fox River where grinding the welds in the girders ‘perfect’ cost as much as the erection? It’s not about containers but the “vocabulary” ISO standardization and widespread shipping familiarity evoke. That the actual structure likely has to be ridiculously overbuilt with fancy structure and seals as with most Gehry buildings, and likely as ridiculous to heat, cool, or indeed live in as the Incinerated House, is pretty much beside the point…
This is what often happens with passenger car “restorations”.
Quite often the cars ar gutted (Ringling Brother’s style) especially if the car has sat in the elements for any length of time or has been converted to another use, maintenance of way, for instance.
Unless the new owner has exceptionally deep pockets, a “replacement” interior has to be cobbled together from ever-diminishing sources of Pullman hardware or fabricated from scratch.
Service life of a wood frame residential structure is usually well under 100 years.
You cannot restore a wood frame house, only slow the deterioration.
Stone or brick may last longer but you may not want it to. Please note that generally speaking commercial structures are not renovated unless some nutter decides they have cultural value. Europe is absolutely plagued by such retrospective thinking. I live in a place with precious little such structures and improvement of building stock is pretty cheap: demolish and rebuild to new standards. Ironically, London, Paris and much of Germany did the same but the two forner examples did so in 1666 and the mid Victorian era respectively. We all know how Germany got around to it. All that 200-400 year old infrastructure is plain worn out. Germany has a big advantage in that respect and it shows.
Modern construction, even of wood frame, is far superior to original stick built in-place wood frame. Engineered joists and multi lam beams are far superior to 2x10 solid wood. Insulation, weatherproofing, you none it and it’s all far better than it used to be.
House “restoration” reminds me of classic car restoration. Nice idea but not at all rational.
Much the same is true of our hobby. Improvements in design and manufacturing capability have transformed model railroading. Much of this resulted from computerization improving design and manufacturing quality while reducing cost.
Cars are right up to the minute. Residential building trails far, far behind. Why?
If you have a one-of-its-kind classic, it is worth restoring. We have a few Frank DePasquale homes in our mid-century neighborhood, and if someone were to buy one as a tear-down, people would freak.